6
\$\begingroup\$

Does the Eyebite spell work through a Wall of Force? Or is it blocked by Full Cover, even if the target can be seen?

This question is similar to this, but contrarily to Gaze effects the spell Eyebite obeys the following rule regarding spell casting:

To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover.

\$\endgroup\$
8
\$\begingroup\$

In general, 5e rulings are adjudicated first by following exactly what is written, and second (if what is written is unclear or silent on the subject in question) by the GM. So, my answer is:

Yes, but...

This GM would rule that yes an eyebite spell could affect through a wall of force (WoF). The WoF spell says that it protects (or, traps) like so (emphasis mine):

Nothing can physically pass through the wall. It is immune to all damage and can't be dispelled by dispel magic. A disintegrate spell destroys the wall instantly, however. The wall also extends into the Ethereal Plane, blocking ethereal travel through the wall.

The eyebite spell reads like so (emphasis my own):

For the spell's duration, your eyes become an inky void imbued with dread power. One creature of your choice within 60 feet of you that you can see must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or be affected...

Eyebite simply requires that the victim be seen but not interacted with in any other way. Since WoF is a transparent barrier, it can be seen through, thus eyebite works.

However...

With that ruling, this GM might end up on an unraveling, or nerfing, of the WoF spell. This previous discussion explains that a WoF blocks all spells by creating total cover. Simply put, a creature within the WoF cannot be the target of a spell. Ah, you say, but eyebite's target is "self"--too true! The victim of the eyebite spell must then be merely "seen" (not "gazed") and, we wind up back at my ruling above that transparent walls can be seen through and thus, the eyebite spell works through WoF.

So it comes down to this: The GM needs to rule whether or not "seeing" the victim of the eyebite spell counts as targeting for the purposes of cover.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ "In 5e rulings are adjudicated first by following exactly what is written, and second (if what is written is unclear or silent on the subject in question) by the GM." In general this statement is only true for RAW interpretations which is not the only type of ruling there is. \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose Apr 26 at 13:56
  • \$\begingroup\$ I’ll edit to accommodate :) \$\endgroup\$ – TigerDM Apr 26 at 14:03
  • \$\begingroup\$ You make a strong argument that the spell should affect someone on the other side of a wall of force, but at the end I can't tell if that's actually your answer. \$\endgroup\$ – Mark Wells Apr 26 at 15:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ @MarkWells the answer is "ask your DM because here is 2 different rulings I can come up with" \$\endgroup\$ – SaggingRufus Apr 26 at 15:11
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SaggingRufus They're the same ruling, though. "Since WoF is a transparent barrier, it can be seen through, thus eyebite works." And then: "The victim of the eyebite spell must then be merely "seen" (not "gazed") and, we wind up back at my ruling above that transparent walls can be seen through and thus, the eyebite spell works through WoF." \$\endgroup\$ – Mark Wells Apr 26 at 15:32

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.